The word "evolution" is open to a number of differing definitions and thus the possibility of equivocation is ever-present with the use of the word. In the screen shot above the word "evolution" was replaced by "biological diversity." In light of the context this replacement is actually more precise and open to empirical verification. There is still mention of "coevolution" and "natural selection." Beware of being overly enarmored with a word open to multiple definitions. Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas in an article entitled "The Meanings of Evolution" distinguish six different ways "evolution" is commonly used:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organims have descended from a common ancestor.4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.6. "Blind watcmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

So "evolution" is not one thing. The above uses of the word and concept are not all the same and they do not all have the same epistemic status. The empirical data used for one the above may not be sufficient for other definitions. Furthermore, the last one--the "blind watchmaker" thesis--is laden with certain philosophical and even theological presuppositions.

No one is "nixing" evolution in the standards. There is, however, a quest for greater precision as to the concepts under discussion.

Perhaps seminarians should stick to things of a more religious or faith-based nature? There's plenty of contradictory subject matter in this field, like maybe reconciling the two conflicting origin stories in Genesis I and II, or explaining how Noah packed all those species on that ark, or why it's a sin to wear clothing of two kinds of thread.

Larry MacPhee I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. I'm engaging in a discussion of the philosophy of science. If you want a theological debate about the exegesis of specific Bible passages perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

Robert Karaffa I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. Snarkiness and incredulity are not valid forms of logical argumentation.

Richard Klaus; I think you're trying too hard here. All 6 of your proposed "speparate" definitions all say the same thing except they dont. Using definition one as a "change in nature" would be a silly and dumbed down explaination that I think only those who were failing their science class would walk away with. I.e. a Canyon doesnt "evolve" from a mountain. Yet a canyon is most certainly a "change in nature" over time. In context, we can use definition one to see, track, and understand an organisms change over time using evolutionary biology to track what changes were made, about when we see those changes in the records, etc.

3, 4, and 5, are just different wordings of the same definition which include different aspects of the agreed upon definition. Explicitly talking about organisms and groups or organisms and their evolutionary decent and evolutionary progress on those organisms. Trying to use these all as separate concepts is to try far too hard to break the definition because you, yourself, lack understanding of the concept or it's mechanisms.

6 is just pure religious assertion, describing evolutionary concepts but having the gall to discredit the concept using religious terms "unintelligent" "blind" and "lack of guidance or purpose" to slam religious views into the definition thereby tainting the definition for any religious person reading it. So no, you're not just "trying to have a discussion" you're trying to insert some talking points that make your religious arguments seem almost palatable, but makes you look ignorant on the subject you're trying to discuss.

Sorry you were born about a century and a half too late to participate in the "discussion" on the merits of evolution. The only thing that's happened in the last 150 years, is a greater understanding of the evolutionary process and stronger validation of evolutionary biology.

Richard Klaus I think you're defending some very misguided people, and the creationist/intelligent design sources you cite suggest that you are doing so with intent to deceive. The legislators aren't singling out the word evolution for removal because they want more distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, natural selection, speciation, etc. They are trying to overwrite scientific facts with their own personal religious beliefs. You are pretending to engage in a discussion of the philosophy of science but I'm skeptical that this is your true agenda.

Larry MacPhee I made two claims. First, the word "evolution" is open to equivocation. Second, the varying conceptions of evolution are not all of the same epistemic status. If you have a counter-argument it would be good to hear it. Calling into question my motives--my alleged "intent to deceive"--is not rational or valid. If you don't want to discuss the arguments I brought forward that's fine but nothing is gained by ad hominem attacks.

1. Your sentence: "All 6 of your proposed "speparate" definitions all say the same thing except they dont." You do realize that this sentence is self-contradictory--they "all say the same thing except they don't." Which is it? Are they saying the same thing or not?

2. Your sentence: "3, 4, and 5, are just different wordings of the same definition which include different aspects of the agreed upon definition." This is just false, as can be seen by anyone giving a fair reading to the definitions under consideration. Definition #3 concerns the issue of limited common descent whereas #5 is about universal common desecent. These are conceptually different and the evidence used to confirm #3 may not be enough to substantiate #5. Definition #4 is completely different in that it deals with the issue of the mechanism of natural selection. There may be evidence for natural selection that is very good (i.e., the Galapagos finch beaks) but this may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate either limited or universal common descent. The key issue, however, is that the definitions are conceptually distinct. And since the simplistic use of the word "evolution" can be used in an equivocal manner it is helpful to separate out the differing concepts.

3. Your sentence: "6 is just pure religious assertion, describing evolutionary concepts but having the gall to discredit the concept using religious terms "unintelligent" "blind" and "lack of guidance or purpose" to slam religious views into the definition thereby tainting the definition for any religious person reading it." No "gall" is intended nor needed. The notions of "unintelligent," "blind," and "lack of guidance or purpose" are often used by some scientists in their defenses of evolution. The concept of the "blind watchmaker thesis" is based off Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker." Consider the statements by the following well-known proponents of evolution:

"No interevening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...Not vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature." Stephen Jay Gould

"[I]t is already evident that all the objectivce phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors... Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." George Gaylord Simpson

"Perhaps most importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal... Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanisms--but this seems to be the message of evolution." Douglas J. Futuyma

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exist; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”--William Provine (Cornell evolutionary biologist)

“Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe, its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.” --Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg